Skip to main content

Full text of "The Green Book Muammar Gaddafi"

See other formats

The Green Book 

Muammar al-Qaddafi 


The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: The Au- 
thority of the People 

1 The Instrument Of Government 7 

2 Parliaments 9 

3 The Party 13 

4 Class 17 

5 Plebiscites 21 

6 Popular Conferences And People's Committees 23 

7 The Law Of Society 27 

8 Who Supervises The Conduct Of Society? 31 

9 How Can Society Redirect Its Course When Devia- 
tions From Its Laws Occur? 33 

10 The Press 35 

The Solution of the Economic Problem: Socialism 

11 The Economic Basis Of The Third Universal Theory 41 

12 Need 49 

13 Housing 51 

14 Income 53 

15 Means Of Transportation 55 

16 Land 57 

17 Domestic Servants 65 


The Social Basis of The Third Universal Theory 

18 The Social Basis Of The Third Universal Theory 69 

19 The Family 73 

20 The Tribe 75 

21 The Merits Of The Tribe yy 
zz The Nation 79 

23 Woman 85 

24 Minorities 95 

25 Black People Will Prevail In The World 97 

26 Education 99 

27 Music And Art 101 

28 Sport, Horsemanship And The Stage 103 


The Solution of the Problem of 
Democracy: The Authority of the 


The Instrument Of Government 

The instrument of government is the prime political problem 
confronting human communities (The problem of the instru- 
ment of government entails questions of the following kind. 
What form should the exercise of authority assume? How 
ought societies to organize themselves politically in the modern 

Even conflict within the family is often the result of the failure 
to resolve this problem of authority It has clearly become more 
serious with the emergence of modern societies. 

People today face this persistent question in new and pressing 
ways. Communities are exposed to the risks of uncertainty and 
suffer the grave consequences of wrong answers. Yet none has 
succeeded in answering it conclusively and democratically. THE 
GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of 
the proper instrument of government. 

All political systems in the world today are a product of the 
struggle for power between alternative instruments of govern- 
ment. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced 
among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome 
is always the victory of a particular governing structure - be it 
that of an individual, group, party or class - and the defeat of 
the people; the defeat of genuine democracy. 

Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate 
with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictato- 


rial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 
per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of govern- 
ment they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon 
them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, this political conflict may 
produce a governing body that represents only a minority. For 
when votes are distributed among several candidates, though 
one polls more than any other, the sum of the votes received by 
those who received fewer votes might well constitute an over- 
whelming majority However, the candidate with fewer votes 
wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic! 
In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false 
democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing 
in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it is evident 
that they falsify genuine democracy. 


Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy 
prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentation 
of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to 
the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to 
represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democ- 
racy means the authority of the people and not an authority act- 
ing on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means 
the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through 
the direct participation of the people, and not through the activ- 
ity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier 
between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the 
masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty 
in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, 
manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots. 

To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to exam- 
ine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a 
party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these 
procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into 
constituencies means that one member of parliament represents 
thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, de- 
pending on the size of the population. It also means that a 
member keeps few popular organizational links with the elec- 
tors since he, like other members, is considered a representa- 
tive of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional 


democracy requires. The masses are completely isolated from 
the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. 
Immediately after winning the electors' votes the representative 
takes over the people's sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The 
prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of parlia- 
ment with a sacredness and immunity which are denied to the 
rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means 
of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has 
thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popu- 
lar revolution, to destroy such instruments - the so-called par- 
liamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, 
and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right 
to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation 
in lieu of the people. 

If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its win- 
ning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party 
and not of the people. It represents the party and not the peo- 
ple, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that 
of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true 
of the parliament of proportional representation in which each 
party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the 
popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their re- 
spective parties and not the people, and the power established 
by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not 
that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the vic- 
tims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions 
who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly 
noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alter- 
natively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, 
silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they 



throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democ- 
racy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by 
a one-party two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it 
is clear that representation is a fraud. 

Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based 
on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the 
real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor 
people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the 
result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted 
by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any 
form of democracy. 

Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of 
representative parliaments at a time when peoples were uncon- 
sciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. 
The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to 
have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even 
this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted 
struggle to attain this goal. 

After the successful establishment of the age of the republics 
and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable 
that democracy should mean the electing of only a few repre- 
sentatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete 
structure. Authority must be in the hands of all of the people. 

The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have 
existed under the aegis of parliaments. 


The Party 

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the mod- 
ern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of 
a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates 
a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, 
and propaganda through its members. The party is not a demo- 
cratic instrument because it is composed only of those people 
who have common interests, a common perception or a shared 
culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the 
same belief. They form a party to achieve their ends, impose 
their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs, values, and 
interests to the society as a whole. A party's aim is to achieve 
power under the pretext of carrying out its program. Democrat- 
ically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who 
constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions 
and beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government 
that enables those with common outlooks or interests to rule the 
people as a whole. Within the community, the party represents 
a minority. 

The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to 
rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The 
party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian con- 
cept - the domination of the members of the party over the rest 
of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power 



is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are 
also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dic- 
tatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how 
many parties exist, the theory remains valid. 

The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for 
power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the 
people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are pre- 
sented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling 
party so that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very 
seldom resort to arms in their struggle but, rather, denounce and 
denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle which is in- 
evitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the 
society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey 
to the struggle for power between instruments of government, 
for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition in 
their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to 
rule, the opposition party has to defeat the existing instrument 
of government. 

To do so, the opposition must minimize the government's 
achievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those 
plans may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the inter- 
ests and programs of the society become the victims of the par- 
ties' struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, 
socially, and economically destructive to the society, despite the 
fact that it creates political activity. 

Thus, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument 
of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of another. It 
is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy. 
Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from 
inside or outside. 



Originally, the party is formed ostensibly to represent the 
people. Subsequently, the party leadership becomes representa- 
tive of the membership, and the leader represents the party elite. 
It becomes clear that this partisan game is a deceitful farce based 
on a false form of democracy. It has a selfish authoritarian char- 
acter based on maneuvres, intrigues and political games. This 
confirms the fact that the party system is a modern instrument 
of dictatorship. The party system is an outright, unconvincing 
dictatorship, one which the world has not yet surpassed. It is, in 
fact, the dictatorship of the modern age. 

The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament 
of the party, for the executive power formed by this parliament 
is the power of the party over the people. Party power, which 
is supposedly for the good of the whole people, is actually the 
arch-enemy of a fraction of the people, namely, the opposition 
party or parties and their supporters. The opposition is, there- 
fore, not a popular check on the ruling party but, rather, is itself 
opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. According 
to modern democracy, the legitimate check on the ruling party 
is the parliament, the majority of whose members are from that 
ruling party. That is to say, control is in the hands of the rul- 
ing party, and power is in the hands of the controlling party. 
Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of the political the- 
ories dominant in the world today become obvious. From these 
emerge contemporary conventional democracy. 

"The party represents a segment of the people, but the 
sovereignty of the people is indivisible." 

"The party allegedly governs on behalf of the people, but in 
reality the true principle of democracy is based upon the notion 
that there can be no representation in lieu of the people." 



The party system is the modern equivalent of the tribal or sec- 
tarian system. A society governed by one party is similar to one 
which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party as shown, 
represents the perception of a certain group of people, or the 
interests of one group in society, or one belief, or one region. 
Such a party is a minority compared with the whole people, just 
as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has narrow, common 
sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlook is 
formed. Only the blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a 
party, and, indeed, a tribe might also be the basis for the founda- 
tion of a party. There is no difference between party struggle and 
tribal or sectarian struggles for power. Just as tribal and sectar- 
ian rule is politically unacceptable and inappropriate, likewise 
the rule under a party system. Both follow the same path and 
lead to the same end. The negative and destructive effects of the 
tribal or sectarian struggle on society is identical to the negative 
and destructive effects of the party struggle. 



The political class system is the same as a party, tribal, or sec- 
tarian system since a class dominates society in the same way 
that a party, tribe or sect would. Classes, like parties, sects or 
tribes, are groups of people within society who share common 
interests. Common interests arise from the existence of a group 
of people bound together by blood-relationship, belief, culture, 
locality or standard of living. Classes, parties, sects and tribes 
emerge because blood-relationship, social rank, economic inter- 
est, standard of living, belief, culture and locality create a com- 
mon outlook to achieve a common end. Thus, social structures, 
in the form of classes, parties, tribes or sects, emerge. These 
eventually develop into political entities directed toward the re- 
alization of the goals of that group. In all cases, the people are 
neither the class, the party, the tribe, nor the sect, for these are 
no more than a segment of the people and constitute a minority. 
If a class, a party, a tribe, or a sect dominates a society, then the 
dominant system becomes a dictatorship. However, a class or a 
tribal coalition is preferable to a party coalition since societies 
originally consisted of tribal communities. One seldom finds a 
group of people who do not belong to a tribe, and all people 
belong to a specific class. But no party or parties embrace all of 
the people, and therefore the party or party coalition represents 
a minority compared to the masses outside their membership. 



Under genuine democracy, there can be no justification for any 
one class to subdue other classes for its interests. Similarly, no 
party, tribe or sect can crush others for their own interests. 

To allow such actions abandons the logic of democracy and 
justifies resort to the use of force. Such policies of suppression 
are dictatorial because they are not in the interest of the whole 
society, which consists of more than one class, tribe or sect, or 
the members of one party. There is no justification for such ac- 
tions, though the dictatorial argument is that society actually 
consists of numerous segments, one of which must undertake 
the liquidation of others in order to remain solely in power. This 
exercise is not, accordingly, in the interests of the whole society 
but, rather, in the interests of a specific class, tribe, sect, party, or 
those who claim to speak for the society. Such an act is basically 
aimed at the member of the society who does not belong to the 
party, class, tribe or sect which carries out the liquidation. 

A society torn apart by party feud is similar to one which is 
torn apart by tribal or sectarian conflicts. 

A party that is formed in the name of a class inevitably be- 
comes a substitute for that class and continues in the process of 
spontaneous transformation until it becomes hostile to the class 
that it replaces. 

Any class which inherits a society also inherits its characteris- 
tics. If the working class, for example, subdues all other classes 
of a particular society, it then becomes its only heir and forms 
its material and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those 
from whom it inherits, though this may not be evident all at 
once. With the passage of time, characteristics of the other elim- 
inated classes will emerge within the ranks of the working class 
itself. The members of the new society will assume the attitudes 



and perspectives appropriate to their newly evolved character- 
istics. Thus, the working class will develop a separate society 
possessing all of the contradictions of the old society In the first 
stage, the material standard and importance of the members be- 
come unequal. Thereafter, groups emerge which automatically 
become classes that are the same as the classes that were elim- 
inated. Thus, the struggle for domination of the society begins 
again. Each group of people, each faction, and each new class 
will all vie to become the instrument of government. 

Being social in nature, the material base of any society is 
changeable. The instrument of government of this material base 
may be sustained for some time, but it will eventual become ob- 
solete as new material and social standards evolve to form a new 
material base. Any society which undergoes a class conflict may 
at one time have been a one-class society but, through evolution, 
inevitably becomes a multi-class society. 

The class that expropriates and acquires the possession of oth- 
ers to maintain power for itself will soon find that, through evo- 
lution, it will be itself subject to change as though it were the 
society as a whole. 

In summary, all attempts at unifying the material base of 
a society in order to solve the problem of government, or at 
putting an end to the struggle in favour of a party, class, sect or 
tribe have failed. All endeavours aimed at appeasing the masses 
through the election of representatives or through parliaments 
have equally failed. To continue such practices would be a waste 
of time and a mockery of the people. 



Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote "yes" 
or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are 
silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are 
not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is 
oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should express 
their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who 
say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not 
vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify 
their "yes" or "no" vote. 

What then, is the path to be taken by humanity in order 
to conclusively rid itself of the elements of dictatorship and 

The intricate problem in the case of democracy is reflected in 
the nature of the instrument of government, which is demon- 
strated by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The elec- 
tions and plebiscites were invented to cover the failure of these 
unsuccessful experiments to solve this problem. The solution lies 
in finding an instrument of government other than those which 
are subject to conflict and which represent only one faction of 
society; that is to say, an instrument of government which is not 
a party class, sect or a tribe, but an instrument of government 
which is the people as a whole. In other words, we seek an in- 



strument of government which neither represents the people nor 
speaks in their name. 

There can be no representation in lieu of the people and rep- 
resentation is fraud. If such an instrument can be found, then 
the problem is solved and true popular democracy is realized. 
Thus, humankind would have terminated the eras of tyranny 
and dictatorships, and replaced them with the authority of the 

THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the 
problem of the instrument of government, and indicates for the 
masses the path upon which they can advance from the age of 
dictatorship to that of genuine democracy. 

This new theory is based on the authority of the people, with- 
out representation or deputation. It achieves direct democracy in 
an orderly and effective form. It is superior to the older attempts 
at direct democracy which were impractical because they lacked 
popular organizations at base levels. 


Popular Conferences And People's Committees 

Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular 
democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, 
the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the 
prevailing systems of government in the world today will re- 
main undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular 
Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest 
of democracy. 

Popular Conferences and People's Committees are the 
fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Con- 
ferences and People's Committees are not creations of the imag- 
ination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all 
human experiments to achieve democracy. 

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal 
method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all 
people, however small the population, in one place so that they 
can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from 
direct democracy, which became an Utopian idea detached from 
reality. It was replaced by various theories of government, such 
as representative councils, party-coalitions and plebiscites, all of 
which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing 
their political affairs. 

These instruments of government - the individual, the class, 
the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling to 







achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and 
monopolized politics and authority for themselves. 

THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented 
practical system of direct democracy No two intelligent people 
can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until 
now no practical method for its implementation has been de- 
vised. The Third Universal Theory however, now provides us 
with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of 
democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left 



before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevail- 
ing forms of dictatorial governments, be they parliament, sect, 
tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or multi-party 
system, which falsely call themselves democracies. 

True democracy has but one method and one theory The dis- 
similarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic 
do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of 
the people has but one face which can only be realized through 
Popular Conferences and People's Committees. There can be no 
democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees ev- 

First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. 
Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secre- 
tariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Pop- 
ular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popu- 
lar Conferences select administrative People's Committees to re- 
place government administration. All public institutions are run 
by People's Committees which will be accountable to the Ba- 
sic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise 
its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision 
become the people's and the outdated definition of democracy 

- democracy is the supervision of the government by the people 

- becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: 
Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people. 

All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences 
belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and 
have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional 
Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizen- 
ship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People's 
Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferences and 



People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in the 
General People's Congress, which brings together the Secretari- 
ats of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees. Reso- 
lutions of the General People's Congress, which meets annually 
or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and 
People's Committees, which undertake the execution of those 
resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in 
turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences. 

The General People's Congress is not a gathering of persons 
or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering 
of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees. 

Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is natu- 
rally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The peo- 
ple become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of 
democracy in the world is conclusively solved. 


The Law Of Society 

Law represents the other problem, parallel to that of the instru- 
ment of government, which has not been resolved. Although it 
was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still 
persists today. 

For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft 
the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also 
invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated 
or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly. 

What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its 
relevance to democracy? 

The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradi- 
tion (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside 
these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot 
be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamen- 
tally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source 
from which it must derive its justification. 

The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitu- 
tions have become the law of societies. These constitutions are 
based solely on the premises of the instruments of dictatorial 
rule prevailing in the world today, ranging from the individual 
to the party. Proof of this are the differences existing in various 
constitutions, although human freedom is one and the same. 
The reason for the differences is the variation in the assump- 



tions and values implicit in diverse instruments of government. 
This is how freedom becomes vulnerable under contemporary 
forms of government. 

The method by which a specific modality of government 
seeks to dominate the people is contained in the constitution. 
The people are compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws de- 
rived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the 
tendencies within particular instruments of governments. 

The laws of the dictatorial instruments of government have 
replaced the natural laws, i.e., positive law has replaced natural 
law. Consequently, ethical standards have become confused. The 
human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same 
everywhere. Because of this fact, natural laws are applicable to 
all. However, constitutions as conventional laws do not perceive 
human beings equally. This view has no justification, except for 
the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, 
be it an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is why 
constitutions change when an alteration in the instruments of 
government takes place, indicating that a constitution is not nat- 
ural law but reflects the drive of the instrument of government 
to serve its own purpose. 

The abrogation of natural laws from human societies and 
their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental dan- 
ger that threatens freedom. Any ruling system must be made 
subservient to natural laws, not the reverse. 

The fundamental law of society must not be subject to his- 
torical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the 
decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and 
wrong, and individual rights and duties can be judged. Freedom 
is threatened unless society adheres to a sacred law with estab- 



lished rules that are not subject to alteration or change by any 
instrument of government. It is, rather, the responsibility of the 
instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Un- 
fortunately, people the world over are currently ruled by man- 
made laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending upon 
the struggle for power among competing forms of government. 

Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is often insufficient. 
Plebiscites are essentially a counterfeit of democracy since a 
"yes" or "no" is the only option. Moreover, under man-made 
law, people are compelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conduct- 
ing a plebiscite on a constitution does not necessarily make the 
constitution the law of society. In other words, the status of a 
constitution will not be altered by a plebiscite; it will remain no 
more than the subject of a plebiscite. 

The law of society is an eternal human heritage that does not 
belong only to the living. Therefore, drafting a constitution or 
conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery. 

The catalogues of man-made laws emanating from man- 
made constitutions are fraught with physical penalties directed 
against human beings, while tradition contains few such mea- 
sures. Tradition lays down moral, non-physical penalties that 
conform to the intrinsic nature of humanity. Religion contains 
tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a manifestation of the 
natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic social guide- 
lines and answers to the fundamental questions of existence. 

Most physical penalties are deferred to a future judgment. 
This is the most appropriate law affording due respect to the 
human being. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties, 
save in certain compelling instances necessary to the well-being 
of society. 



Religion contains tradition, and tradition is an expression of 
the natural life of the people. Therefore, religion is an affirma- 
tion of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws which are 
not premised on religion and tradition are merely an invention 
by man to be used against his fellow man. Consequently, such 
laws are invalid because they do not emanate from the natural 
source of tradition and religion. 


Who Supervises The Conduct Of Society? 

The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and 
to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society? 
Democratically no one group can claim this right on behalf of 
society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial 
for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision 
of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the respon- 
sibility of the society as a whole. This can be arrived at through 
the democratic instrument of government that results from the 
organization of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, 
and through the government of these people through People's 
Committees and the General People's Congress - the national 
congress - where Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and 
the People's Committees convene. In accordance with this the- 
ory, the people become the instrument of government and, in 
turn, become their own supervisors. Society thus secures self- 
supervision over its laws. 


How Can Society Redirect Its Course When Deviations From Its 

Laws Occur? 

If the instrument of government is dictatorial, as is the case in 
the world's political systems today, society's awareness of devia- 
tion from its laws is expressed only through violence to redirect 
its course, i.e., revolution against the instrument of government. 
Violence and revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments 
of society regarding deviation, do not constitute an exercise in 
which the whole of society takes part. Rather, violence and rev- 
olution are carried out by those who have the capability and 
courage to take the initiative and proclaim the will of society. 
However, this unilateral approach is dictatorial because the rev- 
olutionary initiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new 
instrument of government representing the people to arise. This 
means that the governing structure remains dictatorial. In addi- 
tion, violence and effecting change by force are both undemo- 
cratic, even though they take place as a reaction against an un- 
democratic prior condition. The society that revolves around this 
concept is backward. What, then, is the solution? 

The solution lies in the people being themselves the instru- 
ment of government whose authority is derived from Basic Pop- 
ular Conferences and the General People's Congress; in elimi- 
nating government administration and replacing it by People's 
Committees; and finally, in the General People's Congress be- 



coming a truly national convention where Basic Popular Con- 
ferences and People's Committees convene. 

In such a system, if deviation takes place, it is then rectified 
by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of force. 
The process here is not a voluntary option for social change and 
treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the 
nature of this democratic system because, in such a case, there is 
no outside group who can be held responsible for such deviation 
or against whom violence can be directed. 



The Press 

An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if 
he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. 
Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate 
identity The former represent only themselves and the latter 
represent those who share their corporate identity. Since society 
consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expres- 
sion, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does 
not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such 
expression reflects only in the individual's character. Likewise, 
corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those 
making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, 
despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, ex- 
presses the interests of those who make up the company. 

The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a 
means of expression for private individuals or corporate bod- 
ies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong 
to either one of them. 

A newspaper owned by any individual is his or her own, and 
expresses only his or her point of view. Any claim that a newspa- 
per represents public opinion is groundless because it actually 
expresses the viewpoint of that private individual. Democrati- 
cally, private individuals should not be permitted to own any 
public means of publication or information. However, they have 
the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally, 



to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sec- 
tor, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular 
social group. It presents their own points of view and not that 
of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and 
private individuals in society. 

The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's 
Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this 
case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information 
medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole 
society, and representing all its groups. 

If medical professionals issue a journal, it must be purely 
medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private individ- 
uals have the right to express only their own, and not anyone 
else's opinions. 

What is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in 
the world will be radically and democratically solved. Because it 
is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the prob- 
lem of freedom of the press cannot be solved independently of 
that of democracy in society as a whole. Therefore, the only so- 
lution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The 
Third Universal Theory. 

According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohe- 
sive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic Pop- 
ular Conferences and People's Committees which convene in a 
General People's Congress. This is absolutely the only form of 
genuine democratic society. 

In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age 
of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes. But 
even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of 
the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of 



external authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of 
a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threat of a return 
to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, instead of 
the authority of the people. 

Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but, realistically, the 
strong always rules, i.e., the stronger party in the society is the 
one that rules. 


Part II 

The Solution of the Economic 
Problem: Socialism 



The Economic Basis Of The Third Universal Theory 

Important historical developments contributing to the solution 
of the problem of work and wages - the relationship between 
producers and owners, workers and employers - have occurred 
in recent history. These developments include the determination 
of fixed working hours, overtime pay, leaves, minimal wages, 
profit sharing, the participation of workers in administration, 
the banning of arbitrary dismissal, social security, the right to 
strike, and other provisions contained in labour codes of al- 
most all contemporary legislation. Of no less significance are 
changes in the realm of ownership, such as the enactment of 
laws transferring private ownership to the state, and also those 
limiting income. Despite these not inconsiderable developments 
in the history of economics, the problem still fundamentally ex- 
ists, even though it has been made less severe than in past cen- 
turies through improvements, refinements and developments 
that have brought many benefits to the workers. 

However, the economic problem still persists unsolved in the 
world. Attempts aimed at ownership have failed to solve the 
problems of producers. They are still wage-earners, despite the 
state ownership which may vary from the extreme right to the 
extreme left to the centre of the political spectrum. 

Attempts to improve wages were equally significant to those 
that were aimed at the transferral of ownership. In the wake of 
the Industrial Revolution, benefits from wage negotiations se- 



cured for workers certain privileges that were guaranteed by 
legislation and protected by trade unions, thus improving the 
lot of the workers. As time passed, workers, technicians, and 
administrators have acquired certain rights which were previ- 
ously unattainable. However, in reality, the economic problem 
still exists. 

Attempts that were aimed at wages were contrived and refor- 
mative, and have failed to provide a solution. They were more 
of a charity than a recognition of the rights of the workers. Why 
do workers receive wages? Because they carry out a production 
process for the benefit of others who hire them to produce a 
certain product. In this case, they do not consume what they 
produce; rather, they are compelled to concede their product 
for wages. Hence, the sound rule: those who produce consume. 
Wage-earners, however improved their wages may be, are a type 
of slave. 

Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. 
They are temporary slaves, and their slavery lasts as long as 
they work for wages from employers, be they individuals or the 
state. The workers' relationship to the owner or the productive 
establishment, and to their own interests, is similar under all 
prevailing conditions in the world today, regardless of whether 
ownership is right or left. Even publicly-owned establishments 
give workers wages as well as other social benefits, similar to the 
charity endowed by the rich owners of economic establishments 
upon those who work for them. 

Unlike the privately-owned establishment where income ben- 
efits the owner, the claim that the income from the public-owned 
establishment benefits all of the society, including the workers, is 
true only if we take into consideration the general welfare of the 



society and not the private well-being of the workers. Further, 
we would have to assume that the political authority control- 
ling ownership is that of all the people, practised through the 
Popular Conferences and People's Committees, and not the au- 
thority of one class, one party, several parties, one sect, tribe, 
family, individual, or any form of representative authority Fail- 
ing this, what is received directly by the workers with respect to 
their own interests, in the form of wages, percentage of profits 
or social benefits, is the same as that received by workers in a 
private corporation. In both instances, the producers are wage- 
earners, despite the difference in ownership. Thus, this change 
in ownership has not solved the problem of the producer's right 
to benefit directly from what he produces, and not through the 
society nor through wages. The proof thereof is the fact that pro- 
ducers are still wage-earners despite the change in this state of 

The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system, 
emancipating people from its bondage and reverting to the nat- 
ural laws which defined relationships before the emergence of 
classes, forms of governments and man-made laws. These nat- 
ural rules are the only measures that ought to govern human 

These natural rules have produced natural socialism based on 
equality among the components of economic production, and 
have maintained public consumption almost equal to natural 
production among individuals. The exploitation of man by man 
and the possession by some individuals of more of the general 
wealth than their needs required is a manifest departure from 
the natural rule and the beginning of distortion and corruption 



in the life of the human community. It heralds the start of the 
exploitative society. 

If we analyse the factors of economic production from ancient 
times to the present, we always find that they essentially con- 
sist of certain basic production components, i.e., raw materials, 
means of production, and a producer. The natural rule of equal- 
ity requires that each of these components receives a share of 
this production. Because production cannot be achieved with- 
out the essential role of each of these components, it has to 
be equally divided amongst them. The preponderance of one 
of them contravenes the natural rule of equality and becomes 
an encroachment upon the others' rights. Thus, each must be 
awarded an equal share, regardless of the number of compo- 
nents in the process of production. If the components are two, 
each receives half of the production; if three, then one-third. 

Applying this natural rule to both ancient and modern situ- 
ations, we arrive at the following. At the stage of manual pro- 
duction, the process of production resulted from raw material 
and a producer. Later, new means of production were added 
to the process. Animals, utilized as power units, constitute a 
good example. Gradually, machines replaced animals, types and 
amounts of raw materials evolved from the simple and inexpen- 
sive to the valuable and complex. Likewise, the unskilled work- 
ers became skilled workers and engineers; their former huge 
numbers dwindling to a few specialized technicians. 

Despite the fact that components have qualitatively and quan- 
titatively changed, their essential role in production has re- 
mained basically unaltered. For example, iron ore, a component 
of both past and present production, was manufactured prim- 
itively by iron smiths into knives, axes, spears, etc. The same 



iron ore is now manufactured by engineers and technicians by 
means of smelting furnaces into all kinds of machines, engines 
and vehicles. The animal - horse, mule, camel, or the like - which 
was a component of production, has been replaced by factories 
and huge machines. Production, based upon primitive tools, is 
now founded upon sophisticated technical instruments. Despite 
these tremendous changes, the components of natural produc- 
tion remain basically the same. This consistency inevitably ne- 
cessitates returning to sound natural rules to solve the economic 
problems that are the result of all previous historical attempts to 
formulate solutions that ignore these rules. 

All previous historical theories tackled the economic problem 
either from the angle of ownership of any of the components of 
production, or from that of wages for production. They failed to 
solve the real problem; the problem of production itself. Thus, 
the most important characteristic of economic order prevailing 
in the world today is a wage system that deprives the workers 
of any right to the products being produced, be it for the society 
or for a private establishment. 

An industrial establishment is composed of material for pro- 
duction, machines and workers. Production is achieved by work- 
ers manufacturing materials and using machines. Thus, man- 
ufactured goods would not have been ready for use and con- 
sumption had they not gone through a production process re- 
quiring raw materials, factories, and workers. Clearly, without 
basic raw materials, the factory cannot operate and without the 
factory, raw materials will not be manufactured. Likewise, with- 
out producers, the factory comes to a halt. Thus, the three factors 
are equally essential to the process of production, and without 
them there can be no production. The absence of any one of 



these components cannot be replaced by the others. Therefore, 
the natural rule necessitates each component receiving an equal 
share of the benefits of production. It is not only the factory that 
is important, but those who consume its production as well. 

The same is applicable to agricultural production processes 
resulting from only two components: man and land. The prod- 
uct must be divided equally into two shares congruent with the 
number of production components. Furthermore, if any addi- 
tional mode, mechanical or otherwise is utilized in the process, 
production must be equally divided into three shares: the land, 
the farmer, and the means of production. Consequently, a so- 
cialist system emerges under which all production processes are 
governed by this natural rule. 

The producers are the workers; they are called producers be- 
cause the terms "worker," "labourer," and "toiler" have become 
invalid. The traditional definition is revised because workers are 
undergoing qualitative and quantitative changes. The working 
class is declining proportionately to the advancement of science 
and technology. 

Tasks once performed by a number of workers are now being 
carried out by a single machine. Operating a machine requires 
fewer workers; this has brought about a quantitative change in 
the labour force, while the replacement of physical force by tech- 
nical skill has resulted in a qualitative change in the labour force. 

The labour force has become a component of the produc- 
tion process. As a result of technical advancement, multitudes 
of unskilled toilers have been transformed into limited num- 
bers of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, trade 
unions will subsequently disappear and be replaced by syndi- 
cates of engineers and technicians. Scientific advancement is an 



irreversible gain for humankind. Thanks to this process, illiter- 
acy will be eliminated and unskilled workers will become a tem- 
porary phenomenon destined to gradual disappearance. How- 
ever, even in this new environment, persons will always remain 
the basic component in the production process. 




The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are 
controlled by others, for need may lead to the enslavement of 
one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is caused by 
need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by 
the control of one's needs by another. 




Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the 
family and should not be owned by others. Living in another's 
house, whether paying rent or not, compromises freedom. At- 
tempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem 
did not provide a definite solution because such attempts did 
not target the ultimate solution - the necessity that people own 
their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or 
standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly- 
owned enterprise. In a socialist society, no one, including soci- 
ety itself, has the right to control people's needs. No one has the 
right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling 
and that of his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it be- 
cause this additional house is, in fact, a need of someone else. 
Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling 
the needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent". 




Income is an imperative need for man. In a socialist society, it 
should not be in the form of wages from any source or charity 
from any one. In this society there are no wage-earners, but only 
partners. One's income is a private matter and should either be 
managed privately to meet one's needs or be a share from a 
production process of which one is an essential component. It 
should not be a wage in return for production. 



Means Of Transportation 

Transportation is also a necessity both to the individual and to 
the family. It should not be owned by others. In a socialist so- 
ciety no person or authority has the right to own a means of 
transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means 
controlling the needs of others. 



Land is the private property of none. Rather, everyone has the 
right to beneficially utilize it by working, farming or pasturing 
as long as he and his heirs live on it - to satisfy their needs, but 
without employing others with or without a wage. If lands were 
privately owned, only the living would have a share in it. 

Land is permanent, while those who benefit from the land 
undergo, in the course of time, changes in profession, capabili- 
ties and existence. 

The aspiration of the new socialist society is to create a society 
which is happy because it is free. This can only be achieved by 
satisfying, man's material and spiritual needs, and that, in turn, 
comes about through the liberation of these needs from the con- 
trol of others. Satisfaction of these needs must be attained with- 
out exploiting or enslaving others; otherwise, the aspirations of 
the new socialist society are contradicted. 

Thus, the citizen in this new society secures his material 
needs either through self-employment, or by being a partner in a 
collectively-owned establishment, or by rendering public service 
to society which, in return, provides for his material needs. 

Economic activity in the new socialist society is a productive 
one aimed at the satisfaction of material needs. It is not an un- 
productive activity, nor one which seeks profit for surplus sav- 
ings beyond the satisfaction of such needs. This, according to 
the new socialist basis, is unacceptable. The legitimate purpose 



for private economic activities is only to satisfy one's needs be- 
cause the wealth of the world, as well as that of each individual 
society is finite at each stage. No one has the right to undertake 
an economic activity whereby wealth exceeding the satisfaction 
of one's needs can be amassed. Such accumulations are, in fact, 
the deprived right of others. One only has the right to save from 
his own production and not by employing others, or to save 
at the expense of his or her own needs and not of others. If 
economic activity is allowed to extend beyond the satisfaction 
of needs, some will acquire more than required for their needs 
while others will be deprived. The savings which are in excess 
of one's needs are another person's share of the wealth of soci- 
ety. Allowing private economic activity to amass wealth beyond 
the satisfaction of one's needs and employing others to satisfy 
one's needs or beyond, or to secure savings, is the very essence 
of exploitation. 

Work for wages, in addition to being enslavement as previ- 
ously mentioned, is void of incentives because the producer is 
a wage-earner and not a partner. Self-employed persons are un- 
doubtedly devoted to their work because from it they satisfy 
their material needs. Likewise, those who work in a collective 
establishment are also devoted to their work because they are 
partners in it and they satisfy their material needs from the pro- 
duction. Whoever works for a wage, on the other hand, has little 
incentive to work. 

Work for wages has failed to solve the problem of motivation 
for increasing and developing production. Whether it is a service 
or goods production, work for wages is continuously deteriorat- 
ing because it is performed by unmotivated wage-earners. 



First example: 

(a) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society gives 
him one apple for his production and it fully satisfies his needs. 

(b) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society 
gives him one apple for his production which does not satisfy 
his needs. 

Second example: 

A worker produces ten apples for another person and gets 
wages less than the price of one apple. 

Third example: 

A worker produces ten apples for himself. 

The conclusion: 

In the first example (a), because the worker's wages are lim- 
ited to one unit which satisfies his needs, he has no incentive to 
increase his production. Thus, all the labour force that works for 
society is psychologically apathetic. 

(b) The worker has no incentive even to produce because he 
cannot satisfy his needs from the wages. However, he continues 
working without any incentives because generally, like all mem- 
bers, he is forced to acquiesce to the working conditions of the 

In the second example, the worker works basically to get 
wages and not to produce. Since his wages cannot satisfy his 
needs, the choices are either to look for another master to get a 
better price for his work, or be forced, as a matter of survival, to 
remain where he is. 

In the third example, the self-employed alone is the one who 
produces eagerly and voluntarily. 



In a socialist society, there is no possibility for private produc- 
tion to exceed the satisfaction of one's needs because satisfaction 
of needs at the expense or by means of others is not permit- 
ted. Moreover, socialist establishments operate only for the sat- 
isfaction of the needs of society Accordingly, the third example 
demonstrates the sound basis of its economic production. 

However, in all instances, even the bad ones production is as- 
sociated with survival. The proof thereof is that, even though in 
capitalist societies production accumulates and expands in the 
hands of only a few owners who do not work but exploit the 
efforts of others, the toilers are still forced to produce in order 
to survive. However, THE GREEN BOOK not only solves the 
problem of material production but also prescribes a compre- 
hensive solution for the problems facing human societies so that 
individuals may be totally liberated, materially and spiritually, 
in order to attain their happiness. 

Other examples: 

If we assume that the wealth of a society is ten units and its 
inhabitants are ten persons, then the share of each member is 
one-tenth of the total one unit per person. If some members of 
this society get more than one unit each, then a certain number 
from the society get nothing. Their share of the wealth of their 
society has been acquired by others. Hence, the presence of rich 
and poor in an exploitative society. Let us also suppose that five 
members of that particular society each own two units. In such 
a case, half of the society is deprived of their rights to the wealth 
of their society, for what should be theirs has been acquired by 

If an individual of that society needs only one of the units 
of the wealth of the society to satisfy his needs, then those who 



possess more than one unit are, in fact, seizing the rights of 
other members of the society. Because the one unit is all that 
is required to satisfy the needs of an individual, the additional 
units are acquired for the purpose of savings. This can only be 
achieved at the expense of the needs of others; the acquisition 
of others' share in this wealth. This is the reason behind the 
existence of those who hoard and do not spend; those who save 
beyond the satisfaction of their needs; and the existence of those 
who beg and are deprived of their right to the wealth of the 
society and do not find enough to consume. Such is an act of 
plunder and theft, yet according to the unjust and exploitative 
rules governing such a society, it is legitimate and overt. 

Any surplus beyond the satisfaction of needs should ulti- 
mately belong to all members of society. Individuals, however, 
have a right to effect savings from the share allocated to their 
own needs since it is the amassing of wealth beyond the sat- 
isfaction of one's needs that is an encroachment upon public 

The industrious and skilful in a society have no right, as a 
result of this advantage, to take from the shares of others. They 
can use their talents to satisfy their own needs and save from 
those needs. Like any other member of the society, the aged and 
the mentally and physically disabled should have their fair share 
of the wealth of the society. 

The wealth of a society may be likened to a supply estab- 
lishment or a store providing a certain number of people with 
daily rations satisfying their needs. Each person has a right to 
save from such provisions what he wants, i.e., to consume or 
save whatever portions of his share he decides, utilizing his tal- 
ents and skill for such purposes. However, those who use their 



talents to acquire excessively from the "supply establishment" 
are undoubtedly thieves. Therefore, those using their skill to ac- 
quire wealth exceeding the satisfaction of their needs are, in fact, 
infringing upon the public right, namely, the wealth of society 
which is like the store in the said example. 

Disparity in the wealth of individuals in the new socialist so- 
ciety is not tolerated, save for those rendering certain services 
to the society for which they are accorded an amount congruent 
with their services. Individual shares only differ relative to the 
amount of production or public service rendered in excess. 

Hence, human experiences through history have produced a 
new experiment in a unique attempt to culminate the struggle of 
persons to complete their freedom, to achieve happiness through 
satisfying their needs, to ward off exploitation by others, to put 
an end to tyranny, and to find a method to distribute the wealth 
of the society equitably, without exploiting others or compro- 
mising their needs. It is the theory of the fulfilment of needs for 
the emancipation of humanity. 

The new socialist society is but a dialectical outcome of the 
unjust relationships prevailing in the world today. The new so- 
cialist society will introduce the natural solution - privately- 
owned property to satisfy one's needs without exploitation, and 
collective property in which the producers are partners replac- 
ing private enterprise, which is based on the production of oth- 
ers without recognizing their right to a just share of the product. 

Whoever possesses the house in which you dwell, the vehicle 
in which you ride or the income on which you live, possesses 
your freedom, or part of it. Freedom is indivisible. For people to 
be happy, they must be free, and to be free, they must possess 
the possibility of satisfying their own needs. Whoever possesses 



the means of fulfilling your needs controls or exploits you, and 
may enslave you despite any legislation to the contrary 

The material needs of people that are basic and personal 
start with food, housing, clothing and transport and must be 
regarded as private and sacred and their satisfaction should not 
depend on hire. 

To satisfy these material needs through rent, gives the original 
owner the right to interfere in your personal life and to control 
your imperative needs, even if the original owner be the soci- 
ety in general. The original owner can usurp your freedom and 
take away your happiness. The interference of the original owner 
may include repossessing your clothes, even leaving you naked 
on the street. Likewise, the owner of your means of transporta- 
tion may leave you stranded on the sidewalk, and the owner of 
your house may make you homeless. 

People's imperative needs cannot be regulated by legal or 
administrative procedures. They must be fundamentally im- 
planted into the society in accordance with natural rules. 

The aim of the socialist society is the happiness of the human 
being, which cannot be attained except by the establishment of 
one's material, and spiritual freedom. The achievement of free- 
dom depends on the private and sacred attainment of man's 
needs. One's needs should not be under the domination of oth- 
ers and should not be subject to plunder by any source in society, 
otherwise one will live in insecurity. Deprivation of the means 
of fulfilment compromises freedom because, in attempting to 
satisfy basic needs, one would be subject to the interference of 
outside forces in one's basic interests. 

The transformation of existing societies of wage-earners into 
those of partners is inevitable as a dialectical outcome of the 



contradictory economic theories prevailing in the world today. 
It is also a dialectical outcome of the unjust relationship based 
on the wage system. None of these issues have been resolved to 

The antagonistic force of the trade unions in the capitalist 
world is capable of replacing capitalistic wage societies by a soci- 
ety of partnerships. The possibility of a socialist revolution starts 
by producers taking over their share of the production. Con- 
sequently the aims of the producers' strikes will change from 
demanding increases in wages to controlling their share in pro- 
duction. Guided by THE GREEN BOOK , this will sooner or 
later take place. The final step is for the new socialist society to 
reach a stage in which profit and money disappear. Society will 
become fully productive; the material needs of society will be 
met. In this final stage, profit will disappear, as will the need for 

The recognition of profit is an acknowledgment of exploita- 
tion, for profit has no limit. Attempts so far to limit profit by 
various means have been reformative, not radical, intending to 
prohibit exploitation of man by man. The final solution lies in 
eradicating profit, but because profit is the dynamic force be- 
hind the economic process, eliminating profit is not a matter of 
decree but, rather, an outcome of the evolving socialist process. 
This solution can be attained when the material satisfaction of 
the needs of society and its members is achieved. Work to in- 
crease profit will itself lead to its final eradication. 



Domestic Servants 

Domestic servants, paid or unpaid, are a type of slave. Indeed, 
they are the slaves of the modern age. 

Since the new socialist society is based on partnership and 
not on a wage system, natural socialist rules do not apply to 
domestic servants because they render services rather than pro- 
duction. Services have no tangible material product and cannot 
be divided into shares according to the natural socialist rule. 

Domestic servants have no alternative but to work for wages, 
or even be unpaid in the worst of situations. As wage-earners 
are a type of slave and their slavery exists as long as they work 
for wages, domestic servants, whose position is lower than that 
of wage-earners in economic establishments and corporations, 
have an even greater need to be emancipated from the society of 
wage-labour and the society of slaves. 

Domestic servants is a phenomenon that comes next to slav- 

The Third Universal Theory heralds emancipation from the 
fetters of injustice, despotism, exploitation, and economic and 
political hegemony, for the purpose of establishing a society of 
all the people where all are free and share equally in authority, 
wealth and arms. Freedom will then triumph definitively and 



THE GREEN BOOK thus defines the path of liberation to 
masses of wage-earners and domestic servants in order that hu- 
man beings may achieve freedom. The struggle to liberate do- 
mestic servants from their status of slavery and to transform 
them into partners, where their material production can be di- 
vided into its necessary basic components, is an inevitable pro- 
cess. Households should be serviced by their habitants. Essential 
household services should not be performed by domestic ser- 
vants, paid or unpaid, but by employees who can be promoted 
in rendering their services and can enjoy social and material 
benefits as any other public employee would. 


Part III 

The Social Basis of The Third 
Universal Theory 

6 7 

The Social Basis Of The Third Universal Theory 

The social factor, the national factor, is the dynamic force of hu- 
man history. The social bond, which binds together human com- 
munities from the family through the tribe to the nation, is the 
basis for the movement of history 

Heroes in history are, by definition, those who have sacrificed 
for causes. But what causes? They sacrificed for the sake of oth- 
ers, but which others? They are those with whom they maintain 
a relationship. Therefore, the relationship between an individual 
and a group is a social one that governs the people's dealings 
amongst themselves. Nationalism, then, is the base upon which 
one nation emerges. Social causes are therefore national, and 
the national relationship is a social one. The social relationship 
is derived from society, i.e., the relationship among members of 
one nation. The social relationship is, therefore, a national rela- 
tionship and the national is a social relationship. Even if small in 
number, communities or groups form one nation regardless of 
the individual relationship amongst its members. What is meant 
here by a community is that which is permanent because of the 
common national ties that govern it. 

Historic movements are mass movements, i.e., the movement 
of one group in its own interests differentiated from the inter- 
ests of other communities. These differentiations indicate the so- 
cial characteristics that bind a community together. Mass move- 



merits are independent movements to assert the identity of a 
group conquered or oppressed by another group. 

The struggle for authority happens within the group itself 
down to the level of the family as was explained in Part 1 of THE 
GREEN BOOK: The Political Axis of the Third Universal Theory. 
A group movement is a nation's movement for its own interests. 
By virtue of its national structure, each group has common social 
needs which must be collectively satisfied. These needs are in no 
way individualistic; they are collective needs, rights, demands, 
or objectives of a nation which are linked by a single ethos. That 
is why these movements are called national movements. Con- 
temporary national liberation movements are themselves social 
movements; they will not come to an end before every group is 
liberated from the domination of another group. The world is 
now passing through one of the regular cycles of the movement 
of history, namely, the social struggle in support of nationalism. 

In the world of man, this is as much a historical reality as it 
is a social reality. That means that the national struggle - the 
social struggle - is the basis of the movement of history. It is 
stronger than all other factors since it is in the nature of the 
human group; it is in the nature of the nation; it is the nature of 
life itself. Other animals, apart from man, live in groups. Indeed, 
just as the community is the basis for the survival of all groups 
within the animal kingdom, so nationalism is the basis for the 
survival of nations. 

Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin. 
Minorities, which are one of the main political problems in the 
world, are the outcome. They are nations whose nationalism has 
been destroyed and which are thus torn apart. The social factor 



is, therefore, a factor of life - a factor of survival. It is the nation's 
innate momentum for survival. 

Nationalism in the human world and group instinct in the 
animal kingdom are like gravity in the domain of material and 
celestial bodies. If the sun lost its gravity, its gasses would ex- 
plode and its unity would no longer exist. Accordingly, unity 
is the basis for survival. The factor of unity in any group is a 
social factor; in man's case, nationalism. For this reason, human 
communities struggle for their own national unity, the basis for 
their survival. 

The national factor, the social bond, works automatically to 
impel a nation towards survival, in the same way that the gravity 
of an object works to keep it as one mass surrounding its centre. 
The dissolution and dispersion of atoms in an atomic bomb are 
the result of the explosion of the nucleus, which is the focus of 
gravitation for the particles around it. When the factor of unity 
in those component systems is destroyed and gravity is lost, ev- 
ery atom is separately dispersed. This is the nature of matter. 
It is an established natural law. To disregard it or to go against 
it is damaging to life. Similarly, man's life is damaged when he 
begins to disregard nationalism - the social factor - for it is the 
gravity of the group, the secret of its survival. Only the religious 
factor is a rival to the social factor in influencing the unity of 
a group. The religious factor may divide the national group or 
unite groups with different nationalisms; however, the social fac- 
tor will eventually triumph. This has been the case throughout 
the ages. Historically, each nation had a religion. This was har- 
monious. Eventually, however, differences arose which became 
a genuine cause of conflict and instability in the lives of people 
throughout the ages. 



A sound rule is that each nation should have a religion. For it 
to be otherwise is abnormal. Such an abnormality creates an un- 
sound situation which becomes a real cause for disputes within 
one national group. There is no other solution but to be harmo- 
nious with the natural rule, i.e., each nation has a single religion. 
When the social factor is compatible with the religious factor, 
harmony prevails and the life of communities becomes stable, 
strong, and develops soundly. 

Marriage is a process that can positively or negatively influ- 
ence the social factor. Though, on a natural basis of freedom, 
both man and woman are free to accept whom they want and 
reject whom they do not want, marriage within a group, by its 
very nature, strengthens its unity and brings about collective 
growth in conformity with the social factor. 



The Family 

To the individual, the family is more important than the state. 
Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and 
the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his 
origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, 
the human race is the individual and the family, but not the 
state. The human race has neither relations nor anything else 
to do with the state, which is an artificial political, economic, 
and sometimes military, system. The family is like a plant, with 
branches, stems, leaves and blossoms. Cultivating nature into 
farms and gardens is an artificial process that has no relevance 
to the plant itself. The fact that certain political, economic or 
military factors tie a number of families into one state does not 
necessarily link this system or its organization with humanity. 
Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results in the 
dispersion, decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural 
and oppressive, analogous to any procedure, measure or action 
that destroys a plant and its branches and withers its leaves and 

Societies in which the existence and unity of the family be- 
come threatened due to any circumstance, are similar to fields 
whose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire, weathering or 
death. The blossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, 
blossom and pollinate naturally. The same holds true of human 



societies. The flourishing society is that in which the individual 
grows naturally within the family and the family within society. 
The individual is linked to the larger family of humankind like 
a leaf is to a branch or a branch to a tree. They have no value or 
life if they are separated. The same holds true for individuals if 
they are separated from their families - the individual without 
a family has no value or social life. If human society reaches the 
stage where the individual lives without a family, it would then 
become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants. 



The Tribe 

A tribe is a family which has grown as a result of procreation. 
It follows that a tribe is an enlarged family. Similarly a nation is 
a tribe which has grown through procreation. The nation, then, 
is an enlarged tribe. The world is a nation which has been di- 
versified into various nations. The world, then, is an enlarged 
nation. The relationship which binds the family also binds the 
tribe, the nation, and the world. However, it weakens with the 
increase in number. The essence of humanity is that of nation, 
the essence of nation is that of the tribe, and the essence of the 
tribe is that of family. The degree of warmth involved in the re- 
lationship decreases proportionately with the increase in size of 
the social unit. This is an indisputable social fact denied only by 
those who are ignorant of it. 

The social bond, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love are 
stronger at the family level than at the tribal level, stronger at 
the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the level 
of the nation than that of the world. 

Advantages, privileges, values and ideals based on social 
bonds exist where those bonds are natural and undoubtedly 
strong. They are stronger at the family level than at the level 
of the tribe, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation, 
and stronger at the nation's level than that of the world. Thus, 
these social bonds, benefits, advantages and ideals associated 
with them are lost wherever the family, the tribe, the nation 



or humankind vanish or are lost. It is, therefore, of great im- 
portance for human society to maintain the cohesiveness of the 
family, the tribe, the nation and the world in order to benefit 
from the advantages, privileges, values and ideals yielded by 
the solidarity, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love of family, 
tribe, nation and humanity 

In the social sense, the familial society is better than that of 
the tribe, the tribal society is better than that of the nation, and 
the society of the nation is better than world society with respect 
to fellowship, affection, solidarity and benefits. 



The Merits Of The Tribe 

Since the tribe is a large family, it provides its members with 
much the same material benefits and social advantages that the 
family provides for its members, for the tribe is a secondary 
family. What must be emphasized is that, in the context of the 
tribe, an individual might indulge himself in an uncouth man- 
ner, something which he would not do within the family How- 
ever, because of the smallness in size of the family, immediate 
supervision is not exercised, unlike the tribe whose members 
continually feel that they are under its supervision. In view of 
these considerations, the tribe forms a behaviour pattern for 
its members, developing into a social education which is bet- 
ter and more noble than any school education. The tribe is a 
social school where its members are raised to absorb the high 
ideals which develop into a behaviour pattern for life. These be- 
come automatically rooted as the human being grows, unlike 
classroom education with its curricula - formally dictated and 
gradually lost with the growth of the individual. This is so be- 
cause it is formal and compulsory and because the individual is 
aware of the fact that it is dictated to him. 

The tribe is a natural social "umbrella" for social security. By 
virtue of social tribal traditions, the tribe provides for its mem- 
bers collective protection in the form of fines, revenge and de- 
fence; namely, social protection. Blood is the prime factor in the 
formation of the tribe, but it is not the only one because affilia- 



tion is also a factor in the formation of the tribe. With the passage 
of time, the differences between the factors of blood and affilia- 
tion disappear, leaving the tribe as one social and physical unit, 
though it remains fundamentally a unit of blood in origin. 



The Nation 

The nation is the individual's national political "umbrella"; it 
is wider than the social "umbrella" provided by the tribe to 
its members. Tribalism damages nationalism because tribal al- 
legiance weakens national loyalty and flourishes at its expense. 
In the same way, loyalty to the family flourishes at the expense 
of tribal loyalty and weakens it. National loyalty is essential to 
the nation but, at the same time, it is a threat to humanity. 

The nation in the world community is similar, to the family 
in the tribe. The more the families of a tribe feud and become 
fanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is threat- 
ened when its individual members feud and pursue only their 
personal interests. Similarly, if the tribes of a nation quarrel and 
pursue only their own interests, then the nation is undermined. 
National fanaticism expressed in the use of force against weak 
nations, or national progress which is at the expense of other na- 
tions, is evil and harmful to humanity. However, strong individ- 
uals who have self-respect and are aware of their own individual 
responsibilities are important and useful to the family, just as a 
strong and respectable family, which is aware of its importance, 
is socially and materially beneficial to the tribe. Equally useful 
to the whole world is a progressive, productive and civilized 
nation. The national political structure is damaged when it de- 
scends to a lower social level, namely, the family and tribe, and 
attempts to act in their manner and to adopt their views. 



The nation is an enlarged family which has passed through 
the period of the tribe and through the diversification of tribes 
that have branched out from one common source. It also in- 
cludes those members who affiliated themselves with its des- 
tiny. The family likewise, grows into a nation only after passing 
through the period of the tribe and its diversification, as well 
as through the process of affiliation which comes about as a 
result of interaction between various communities in a society 
Inevitably, this is achieved over a long period of time. Although 
the passage of time creates new nations, it also helps to fragment 
old ones. Common origin and common destiny, through affili- 
ation, are the two historic bases for any nation, though origin 
ranks first and affiliation second. A nation is not defined only by 
origin, even though origin is its basis and beginning. In addition 
to its origin, a nation is formed by human affiliations through 
the course of history which induce a group of people to live in 
one area of land, develop a common history, form one heritage, 
and face the same destiny. A nation, irrespective of blood bond, 
is formed through a sense of belonging and a shared destiny. 

But why has the map of the earth witnessed great nations 
that have disappeared to give way to the rise of other nations? Is 
the reason only political, without any relationship to the social 
aspect of The Third Universal Theory? Or, is it social and so 
properly the concern of this part of THE GREEN BOOK? 

Let us see. The family is indisputably a social structure rather 
than a political one. The same applies to the tribe because it is 
a family which has reproduced and enlarged itself to become 
many families. Equally true, the nation is a tribe after it has 
grown and its branches have multiplied and become tribes. 



The nation is also a social structure whose bond is national- 
ism; the tribe is a social structure whose bond is tribalism; the 
family is a social structure whose bond is family ties; and global 
society is a social structure whose bond is humanity These facts 
are self-evident. There is then the political structure of states 
which form the political map of the world. But why does the 
map of the world keep changing from one age to the next? The 
reason is that political structures may or may not, be consistent 
with social structures. When political structure and social reality 
are congruent, as in the case of the nation-state, it lasts and does 
not change. If a change is forced by external colonialism or in- 
ternal collapse, it reappears under the banner of national strug- 
gle, national revival or national unity. When a political structure 
embraces more than one nation, its map will be torn up by each 
nation, gaining independence under the banner of its respec- 
tive nationhood. Thus, the maps of the empires which the world 
has witnessed have been torn up because they were composed 
of a number of nations. When every nation clings strongly to 
its national identity and seeks independence, political empires 
are torn up and their components revert to their social origins. 
This is evidently clear through the history of the world when 
reviewed through the ages. 

But why were those empires made up of different nations? 
The answer is that the state is not a social structure like the 
family, the tribe and the nation, but, rather, a political entity cre- 
ated by several factors, the simplest and foremost of which is 
nationalism. The national state is the only political form which 
is consistent with the natural social structure. Its existence lasts, 
unless it becomes subject to the tyranny of another stronger na- 
tionalism or unless its political structure, as a state, is affected 



by its social structure in the form of tribes, clans and families. A 
political structure is corrupted if it becomes subservient to the 
sectarian social structure of the family, tribe, or sect and adopts 
its characteristics. 

Religious, economic and military factors also contribute to 
form a state which differs from the basic, national state. 

A common religion, as well as the requirements of economics 
or military conquests, may create a state which embraces several 
nations. Thus, in one age, the world witnesses a state or an em- 
pire which will disintegrate in another age. When the spirit of 
nationalism emerges stronger than religious loyalties, or conflict 
flares up between different nationalisms which were brought 
together, for example, by one religion, each nation becomes in- 
dependent and recovers its social structure. That empire, then, 
disappears. The role of religion resurfaces when the religious 
spirit emerges stronger than the spirit of nationalism. Conse- 
quently, the various nationalisms are unified under the banner 
of religion until the national role appears once again, and so on. 

All states which are composed of several nationalities for 
whatever reason - religion, economics, military power or man- 
made ideology will be destroyed by national conflict until each 
nation obtains its independence, because the social factor will 
inevitably triumph over the political factor. 

Despite political circumstances which necessitate the estab- 
lishment of a state, the basis for the life of individuals is the 
family, and extends to the tribe, the nation, and eventually to 
all humanity. The essential factor is the social factor. National- 
ism is a permanent factor. Stress should be laid on social reality 
and family care in order to bring up an integrated well-educated 
human. Care should then be given to the tribe as a social "um- 



brella" and a natural social school which develops its members 
at the post-family stage. The nation then follows. The individual 
learns social values mainly from the family and the tribe which 
form a natural social structure created by no particular individ- 
ual. Taking care of the family is in the interest of the individual 
just as the care of the tribe is in the interest of the family, the 
individual and the nation; it is part of the national identity. The 
social factor, the national factor, is the real constant dynamic 
force behind history. 

To disregard the national bond of human communities and 
to establish a political system in contradiction to social reality 
establishes only a temporary structure which will be destroyed 
by the movement of the social factor of those groups, i.e., the 
national integrity and dynamism of each community. 

These facts are innate in the life of humankind and are not 
intellectual conjectures. Every individual in the world should be 
aware of these realities and work accordingly so that his actions 
may be worthwhile. To avoid deviation, disorder and damage 
in the life of human groups which are the result of a lack of 
understanding and respect for these principles of human life, it 
is necessary to know these proven realities. 


2 3 


It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human 
beings. It follows, as a self-evident fact, that woman and man are 
equal as human beings. Discrimination against woman by man 
is a flagrant act of oppression without justification for woman 
eats and drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates 
as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learns and compre- 
hends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like 
man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels 
hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst; woman lives 
and dies as man lives and dies. 

But why are there men and women? Human society is com- 
posed neither of men alone nor of women alone. It is made up 
naturally of men and women. Why were not only men created? 
Why were not only women created? After all, what is the dif- 
ference between men and women or man and woman? Why 
was it necessary to create men and women? There must be a 
natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather 
than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is 
exactly like the other, and the fact that a natural difference ex- 
ists between men and women is proved by the created existence 
of men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role 
for each one of them corresponding to the difference between 
them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions 



for each one in order that they perform their naturally differ- 
ent roles. To comprehend these roles, we must understand the 
difference in the created nature of man and woman, that is, the 
natural difference between the two. 

Women are females and men are males. According to gynae- 
cologists, women menstruate every month or so, while men, be- 
ing male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly pe- 
riod. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly 
bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant. 
If she is pregnant, she becomes, due to pregnancy, less active 
for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are 
seriously reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers 
her baby or has a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a condi- 
tion attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get 
pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being 
female, suffer. Afterwards a woman may breast-feed the baby 
she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breast- 
feeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby 
that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly re- 
sponsible for another person whom she assists in his or her bio- 
logical functions; without this assistance that person would die. 
The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. 
End of gynaecological statement! 

All these innate characteristics form differences because of 
which men and women are not the same. These characteristics 
in themselves are the realities that define male and female, men 
and women; they assign to each of them a different role or func- 
tion in life. This means that men cannot replace women in carry- 
ing out these functions. It is worthy of consideration that these 
biological functions are a heavy burden, causing women great 



effort and suffering. However, without these functions which 
women perform, human life would come to an end. It follows 
that it is a natural function which is neither voluntary nor com- 
pulsory. It is an essential function, without which human life 
would come to a complete halt. 

Deliberate interventions against conception form an alterna- 
tive to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial delib- 
erate intervention against conception, as well as against breast- 
feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction 
to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to 
kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is 
within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contra- 
diction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, concep- 
tion, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree. 

To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity - 
nurseries replacing mothers - is a start in dispensing with the 
human society and transforming it into a merely biological so- 
ciety with an artificial way of life. To separate children from 
their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by 
which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, 
for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into which chicks are 
crammed after they are hatched. Nothing else would be as ap- 
propriate and suitable to the human being and his dignity as 
natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers 
in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood 
and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail, and not in an 
institution resembling a poultry farm. Even poultry, like the rest 
of the members of the animal kingdom, need motherhood as 
a natural phase. Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to 
nurseries is against their natural growth. Even their meat is arti- 



ficial rather than natural. Meat from mechanized poultry farms 
is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are 
not naturally bred and are not raised in the protective shade of 
natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty and 
nourishing because they are naturally fed. As for children who 
have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and 
only for them, should society establish nurseries and related in- 
stitutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society 
rather than by individuals who are not their parents. 

If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural 
propensity of the child is towards its mother or the nursery, 
the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery. Since 
the natural tendency of a child is towards its mother, she is the 
natural and proper person to give the child the protection of 
nursing. Sending a child to a nursery in place of its mother is 
coercive and oppressive and against its free and natural tenden- 

Natural growth for all living things is free and healthy 
growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is coercive ac- 
tion against free and sound growth. Children who are shipped 
off to a nursery are consigned compulsorily or by exploitation 
and simple-mindedness. They are driven to nurseries purely 
by materialistic, and not by social, considerations. If coercion 
and childish simple-mindedness were removed, they would cer- 
tainly reject the nursery and cling to their mothers. The only 
justification for such an unnatural and inhuman process is the 
fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her nature, 
i.e., she is compelled to perform duties which are unsocial and 
anti-motherhood . 



A woman, whose created nature has assigned to her a natu- 
ral role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate 
position to perform her natural role. 

Motherhood is the female's function, not the male's. Conse- 
quently, it is unnatural to separate children from their mothers. 
Any attempt to take children away from their mothers is coer- 
cion, oppression and dictatorship. The mother who abandons 
her maternity contradicts her natural role in life. She must be 
provided with her rights, and with conditions which are non- 
coercive, unoppressive and appropriate to her natural role. She 
can then fulfill her natural role under natural conditions. If the 
woman is forced to abandon her natural role regarding concep- 
tion and maternity, she falls victim to coercion and tyranny. A 
woman who needs work that renders her unable to perform her 
natural function is not free and is compelled to work by need, 
and "in need, freedom is latent". 

Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable 
women to perform their natural role, which differs from that 
of men, are those very conditions which are proper for a hu- 
man being who is incapacitated and burdened with pregnancy. 
Bearing another human being in her womb lessens her physical 
ability. It is unjust to place such a woman, in this stage of mater- 
nity, into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her 
condition. For pregnant women to perform such physical work 
is tantamount to punishment for their betrayal of their maternal 
role; it is the tax they pay for entering the realm of men, which 
is naturally alien to their own. 

The belief, even if it is held by a woman, that she carries out 
physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true. She per- 
forms the physical work only because a harsh materialistic soci- 



ety has placed her (without her being directly aware of it) into 
coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to 
the conditions of that society even though she may think that 
she works of her own accord. In fact, the alleged basis that "there 
is no difference in any way between men and women", deprives 
woman of her freedom. 

The phrase "in any way" is a monstrous deception. This idea 
will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which 
constitute the privilege which women ought to enjoy apart from 
men in accordance with their distinctive nature, and upon which 
their natural role in life is based. 

To demand equality between man and woman in carrying 
heavy weights while the woman is pregnant is unjust and cruel. 
To demand equality between them in fasting and hardship while 
she is breast-feeding is unjust and cruel. To demand equality 
between them in any dirty work which stains her beauty and 
detracts from her femininity is unjust and cruel. Education that 
leads to work unsuitable for her nature is unjust and cruel as 

There is no difference between men and women in all that 
concerns humanity. None of them should marry the other 
against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial or mu- 
tual agreement. Neither should a woman remarry without such 
agreement or divorce; nor a man without divorce or consent. The 
woman is the owner of the house because it is one of the suit- 
able and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, 
conceives, and cares for her children. The female is the owner 
of the maternity shelter, which is the house. Even in the animal 
world, which differs in many ways from that of the humans, and 
where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercive 



to deprive the female of her shelter and the offspring of their 

Woman is female. Being female means she has a biological 
nature that is different from that of the male. The female's bi- 
ological nature, differing as it does from that of the males, has 
imparted to women characteristics different from those of men 
in form and in essence. A woman's anatomy is different from 
that of a man's just as the female differs in plants and animals. 
This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal and 
plant kingdoms, the male is naturally created strong and ag- 
gressive, while the female is created beautiful and gentle. These 
are natural and eternal characteristics innate to living creatures, 
whether they are called human beings, animals or plants. 

In view of his different nature and in line with the laws of 
nature, the male has played the role of the strong and striving 
not by design, but simply because he is created that way. The 
female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle in- 
voluntarily because she was created so. This natural rule is just, 
partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule 
for freedom. All living creatures are created free and any inter- 
ference with that freedom is coercion. Not to adhere to these 
natural roles and to lack concern for their limits amounts to a 
wanton act of corruption against the values of life itself. Nature 
has been designed to be in harmony with the inevitability of life, 
from what is being to what will become. The living creature is a 
being who inevitably lives until it is dead. Existence between the 
beginning and the end of life is based on a natural law, without 
choice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom. 

In the animal, plant and human realms, there must be a male 
and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end. Not 



only do they exist but they have to exercise, with absolute ef- 
ficiency the natural role for which they have been created. If 
their role is not being efficiently performed, there must be some 
defect in the organization of life caused by historical circum- 
stances. This is the case of societies almost everywhere in the 
world today as they confuse the roles of men and women and 
endeavour to transform women into men. In harmony with na- 
ture and its subsequent purpose, men and women must be cre- 
ative within their respective roles. To resist is retrogressive; it is 
directed against nature and destroys the basis of freedom, for it 
is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must per- 
form, not abandon, the roles for which they are created. 

Abandoning their role, or even a part of it, only occurs as a 
result of coercive conditions and under abnormal circumstances. 
The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and 
femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life 
under these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who 
rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work 
abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The 
woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without 
any concrete cause abandons her natural role as a result of a 
coercive and morally deviant circumstances. Thus, abandoning 
the natural roles of female and male in life can only occur under 
unnatural conditions which are contrary to freedom and are a 
threat to survival. Consequently, there must be a world revolu- 
tion which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering 
women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives 
them to carry out men's duties in order to attain equal rights. 
Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in indus- 



trial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even with- 
out any instigator of revolution such as THE GREEN BOOK. 

All societies today look upon women as little more than com- 
modities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought and 
sold, while the West does not recognize her femininity. 

Driving woman to do man's work is a flagrant aggression 
against the femininity with which she is naturally provided and 
which defines a natural purpose essential to life. Man's work ob- 
scures woman's beautiful features which are created for female 
roles. They are like blossoms which are created to attract pollen 
and to produce seeds. If we did away with the blossoms, the role 
of plants in life would come to an end. The natural embellish- 
ment in butterflies and birds and animal females exists to that 
natural vital purpose. If a woman carries out men's work, she 
risks being transformed into a man, abandoning her role and 
her beauty. A woman has full right to live without being forced 
to change into a man and to give up her femininity. 

Physical structure, which is naturally different in men and 
women, leads to differences in the functions of the organs, which 
in turn leads to differences in the psyche, mood, emotions, as 
well as in physical appearance. A woman is tender; a woman is 
pretty; a woman weeps easily and is easily frightened. In gen- 
eral, women are gentle and men are aggressive by virtue of their 
inbred nature. 

To ignore natural differences between men and women and 
to mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostile 
to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine 
cause for the wretchedness of human social life. 

Modern industrial societies, which have made women adapt 
to the same physical work as men at the expense of their fem- 



ininity and their natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and 
serenity are materialistic and uncivilized. To imitate them is as 
stupid as it is dangerous to civilization and humanity 

The question, then, is not whether women should or should 
not work, for this is a ridiculous materialistic presentation of 
the case. Work should be provided by the society to all able 
members who need work - men and women on the condition 
that individuals work in their own fields and not be coerced into 
carrying out unsuitable work. 

For children to find themselves under adult working condi- 
tions is unjust and dictatorial. It is equally unjust and dictatorial 
for women to find themselves under the working conditions of 

Freedom means that every human being gets proper educa- 
tion which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him 
or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that 
which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable 
work. Work which is appropriate to men is not necessarily ap- 
propriate to women, and knowledge that is proper for children 
does not necessarily suit adults. 

There is no difference in human rights between man and 
woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identity 
between them as regards their duties. 




What is a minority? What are its rights and responsibilities? 
How can the problem of minorities be solved according to the 
solution to various human problems presented by The Third 
Universal Theory? 

There are only two types of minorities. One of them belongs 
to a nation which provides it with a social framework, while 
the other has no nation and forms its own social framework. 
The latter is the one that forms one of the historic groups which 
eventually constitute a nation by virtue of a sense of belonging 
and a common destiny. 

It is now clear that such a minority has its own social rights. 
Any encroachment on these rights by any majority is an act of 
injustice. Social characteristics are inherent and cannot be given 
or taken away. The political and economic problems of minori- 
ties can only be solved within a society controlled by the masses 
in whose hands power, wealth and arms should be placed. To 
view the minority as a political and economic substrata is dicta- 
torial and unjust. 



Black People Will Prevail In The World 

The latest age of slavery has been the enslavement of Blacks 
by White people. The memory of this age will persist in the 
thinking of Black people until they have vindicated themselves. 

This tragic and historic event, the resulting bitter feeling, and 
the yearning or the vindication of a whole race, constitute a psy- 
chological motivation of Black people to vengeance and triumph 
that cannot be disregarded. In addition, the inevitable cycle of 
social history, which includes the Yellow people's domination 
of the world when it marched from Asia, and the White peo- 
ple's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movement cover- 
ing all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the 
re-emergence of Black people. 

Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but 
such backwardness works to bring about their numerical supe- 
riority because their low standard of living has shielded them 
from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their 
old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their 
accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased 
because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant 
occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less ob- 
sessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot. 




Education, or learning, is not necessarily that routinized curricu- 
lum and those classified subjects in textbooks which youths are 
forced to learn during specified hours while sitting in rows of 
desks. This type of education now prevailing all over the world 
is directed against human freedom. State-controlled education, 
which governments boast of whenever they are able to force 
it on their youths, is a method of suppressing freedom. It is a 
compulsory obliteration of a human being's talent, as well as 
a coercive directing of a human being's choices. It is an act of 
dictatorship destructive of freedom because it deprives people 
of their free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human 
being to learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. 
To impose certain subjects upon people is also a dictatorial act. 

State-controlled and standardized education is, in fact, a 
forced stultification of the masses. All governments which set 
courses of education in terms of formal curricula and force peo- 
ple to learn those courses coerce their citizens. All methods of 
education prevailing in the world should be destroyed through 
a universal cultural revolution that frees the human mind from 
curricula of fanaticism which dictate a process of deliberate dis- 
tortion of man's tastes, conceptual ability and mentality. 

This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that 
people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem 
to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means, that society 



should provide all types of education, giving people the chance 
to choose freely any subjects they wish to learn. This requires a 
sufficient number of schools for all types of education. Insuffi- 
cient numbers of schools restrict human freedom of choice, forc- 
ing them to learn only the subjects available, while depriving 
them of the natural right to choose because of the unavailabil- 
ity of other subjects. Societies which ban or monopolize knowl- 
edge are reactionary societies which are biased towards igno- 
rance and are hostile to freedom. Societies which prohibit the 
teaching of religion are reactionary societies, biased towards ig- 
norance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize re- 
ligious education are reactionary societies, biased towards igno- 
rance and hostile to freedom. Equally so are the societies which 
distort the religions, civilizations and behaviour of others in the 
process of teaching those subjects. Societies which consider ma- 
terialistic knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, bi- 
ased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Knowledge is 
a natural right of every human being of which no one has the 
right to deprive him or her under any pretext, except in a case 
where a person does something which deprives him or her of 
that right. 

Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented 
as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is avail- 
able to each person in the manner that suits him or her. 


2 7 

Music And Art 

Humans, being backward, are still unable to speak one common 
language. Until this human aspiration is attained, which seems 
impossible, the expression of joy and sorrow, of what is good 
and bad, beautiful and ugly, comfortable and miserable, mortal 
and eternal, love and hatred, the description of colours, senti- 
ments, tastes and moods - all will be expressed according to 
the language each person speaks spontaneously Behaviour it- 
self will result from the reaction produced by the feeling that 
the language creates in the speaker's mind. 

Learning a single language, whatever it may be, is not the 
solution for the time being. It is a problem that will inevitably 
remain without solution until the process of the unification of 
languages has passed through time, provided that the hered- 
itary factor loses its effect on subsequent generations through 
the passage of sufficient time. The sentiment, taste and mood 
of ancestors form those of their descendants. If those ancestors 
spoke different languages and their children, on the contrary, 
speak a single language, the off-spring would not necessarily 
share common tastes in virtue of speaking a common language. 
Such common tastes can be achieved only when the new lan- 
guage imparts the taste and the sense transmitted by inheritance 
from one generation to another. 



If one group of people wears white clothes in mourning and 
another group puts on black, the sentiment of each group will be 
adjusted according to these two colours, i.e., one group rejects 
the black colour on such an occasion while the other one prefers 
it, and vice versa. Such a sentiment leaves its physical effect on 
the cells as well as on the genes in the body. This adaptation, 
will be transmitted by inheritance. The inheritors automatically 
reject the colour rejected by the legator as a result of inherit- 
ing the sentiment of their legator. Consequently, people are only 
harmonious with their own arts and heritage. They are not har- 
monious with the arts of others because of heredity, even though 
those people, who differ in heritage, speak a single common lan- 

Such a difference emerges between the groups of one people, 
even if it is on a small scale. 

To learn a single language is not the problem, and to under- 
stand others' arts as a result of learning their language is also 
not the problem. The problem is the impossibility of a real intu- 
itional adaptation to the language of others. 

This will remain impossible until the effects of heredity, 
which are transmitted in the human body, come to an end. 

Mankind is still backward because humans do not commu- 
nicate in one inherited common language. It is only a matter 
of time before mankind, achieves that goal, unless civilization 
should relapse. 



Sport, Horsemanship And The Stage 

Sport is either private, like the prayer which one performs alone 
inside a closed room, or public, performed collectively in open 
places, like the prayer which is practised corporately in places of 
worship. The first type of sport concerns the individuals them- 
selves, while the second type is of concern to all people. It must 
be practised by all and should not be left to anyone else to prac- 
tise on their behalf. It is unreasonable for crowds to enter places 
of worship just to view a person or a group of people praying 
without taking part. It is equally unreasonable for crowds to en- 
ter playgrounds and arenas to watch a player of a team without 
participating themselves. 

Sport is like praying, eating, and the feelings of coolness and 
warmth. It is unlikely that crowds will enter a restaurant just 
to look at a person or a group of people eat. It is also unlikely 
that they will let a person or a group or people enjoy warmth or 
ventilation on their behalf. It is equally illogical for the society 
to allow an individual or a team to monopolize sports while the 
society as a whole pays the costs of such a monopoly for the 
exclusive benefit of one person or team. In the same way, people 
should not allow an individual or a group, whether it is a party, 
class, sect, tribe or parliament, to replace them in deciding their 
destiny and in defining their needs. 

Private sport is of concern only to those who practise it on 
their own and at their own expense. Public sport is a public 



need and the people cannot be either democratically or phys- 
ically represented by others in its practice. Physically the rep- 
resentative cannot transmit to others how his body and morale 
benefit from sport. Democratically no individual or team has 
the right to monopolize sport, power, wealth or arms for them- 
selves. Sporting clubs represent the basic organization of tradi- 
tional sport in the world today. They retain all expenditure and 
public facilities allocated to sport in every state. These institu- 
tions are social monopolistic agencies like all dictatorial political 
instruments which monopolize authority, economic instruments 
which monopolize wealth, and traditional military instruments 
which monopolize arms. As the era of the masses does away 
with the instruments monopolizing power, wealth and arms, it 
will, inevitably, destroy the monopoly of social activity in such 
areas as sports, horsemanship, and so forth. The masses who 
queue to vote for a candidate to represent them in deciding 
their destiny act on the impossible assumption that this person 
will represent them and embody, on their behalf, their dignity, 
sovereignty and point of view. However, those masses who are 
robbed of their will and dignity are reduced to mere spectators, 
watching another person performing what they should naturally 
be doing themselves. 

The same holds true of the crowds who, because of ignorance, 
fail to practise sport by and for themselves. They are fooled 
by monopolistic instruments which endeavour to stupefy them 
and divert them to indulging in laughter and applause instead. 
Sport, as a social activity, must be for the masses, just as power, 
wealth and arms should be in the hands of the people. 

Public sport is for all the masses. It is right of all people for 
their health and recreational benefit. It is mere stupidity to leave 



its benefits to certain individuals and teams who monopolize 
these while the masses provide the facilities and pay the ex- 
penses for the establishment of public sports. The thousands 
who crowd stadiums to view, applaud and laugh are foolish 
people who have failed to carry out the activity themselves. 
They line up lethargically in the stands of the sports grounds, 
and applaud those heroes who wrest from them the initiative, 
dominate the field and control the sport and, in so doing, ex- 
ploit the facilities that the masses provide. Originally, the public 
grandstands were designed to demarcate the masses from the 
playing fields and grounds; to prevent the masses from having 
access to the playing fields. When the masses march and play 
sport in the centre of playing fields and open spaces, stadiums 
will be vacant and become redundant. This will take place when 
the masses become aware of the fact; that sport is a public activ- 
ity which must be practised rather than watched. This is more 
reasonable as an alternative than the present costum of a help- 
less apathetic majority that merely watches. 

Grandstands will disappear because no one will be there to 
occupy them. Those who are unable to perform the roles of hero- 
ism in life, who are ignorant of the events of history; who fall 
short of envisaging the future, and who are not serious enough 
in their own lives, are the trivial people who fill the seats of 
the theatres and cinemas to watch the events of life in order to 
learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy school desks 
because they are uneducated and also initially illiterate. 

Those who direct the course of life for themselves have no 
need to watch life working through actors on the stage or in the 
cinema. Horsemen who hold the reins of their horses likewise 
have no seat in the grandstands at the race course. If every per- 



son has a horse, no one will be there to watch and applaud. The 
sitting spectators are only those who are too helpless to perform 
this kind of activity because they are not horsemen. 

Bedouin peoples show no interest in theatres and shows be- 
cause they are very serious and industrious. As they have cre- 
ated a serious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin societies also 
do not watch performers, but perform games and take part in 
joyful ceremonies because they naturally recognize the need for 
these activities and practise them spontaneously. 

Boxing and wrestling are evidence that mankind has not rid 
itself of all savage behaviour. Inevitably it will come to an end 
when humanity ascends the ladder of civilization. Human sac- 
rifice and pistol duels were familiar practices in previous stages 
of human evolution. However, those savage practices came to an 
end years ago. People now laugh at themselves and regret such 
acts. This will be the fate of boxing and wrestling after tens or 
hundreds of years. The more the people become civilized and 
sophisticated, the more they are able to ward off both the per- 
formance and the encouragement of these practices.